Please see the admissibility information reprinted with permission below. Harvard Law, Yale, Princeton, Oxford, Cambridge and numerous other journals and textbooks are interested in the "three bikers" case, because of the technologies of audio pins, animation decibel simulation, topology, and forensic linguistics involved, particularly as they apply to the important field of witness coaching.
The Federal Government also is very interested in the topic, because numerous terrorist trials hinge on forensic linguistics, audio pins, and animations of witness statements. FL, pins, and animation have been admissible in numerous high profile cases, going all the way back to the Son of Sam and Jon Benet Ramsey cases, and now in many recent terrorism trials. The three FL's who contributed to this site are all world renowned FBI FL experts, one of whom was on the original Son of Sam case in 1976.
Admissibility (Reprinted with permission of and © VLD, Inc., All Rights Reserved)
Are Forensic Linguistics (FL) Reports and Animations Admissible?
Both Forensic Linguistics Reports and Expert testimony have been broadly accepted as admissible at all levels of the US Court system, as well as Internationally. This is in contrast to Polygraphs, which usually require advance consent by both parties.
The old test for both FL and other expert reports and testimony was the Frye test (Frye v. United States), which was replaced by Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Frye sought to eliminate "junk science" by not allowing analysis, reports or testimony in areas that are not subject to science and scientific literature. Daubert (Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals) updated both, by listing 4 scientific criteria for expertise. GE v Joiner later affirmed the Supreme Court stance on Daubert, in saying the no lower court rejections of Daubert would be reviewed. Kumho (Kumho Tire Co v. Carmichael) further expanded and generalized Daubert to apply a looser standard of "intellectual rigor."
Finally, Rule 702 has now also been amended to include both Daubert and Kumho. Forensic Linguistics reports and expert testimony have been held, under Rule 702, to be admissible in nearly every case. These include terrorism trials, the unibomber, the JonBenet Ramsey case, and many other prominent cases as well as thousands of others that are routine and less notable.
Solan and Tiersma state:
"Linguistic Analysis generally meets any evidentiary standard, whether governed by Frye or Daubert. Linguistics is a field whose work is published largely in peer-reviewed journals. It is intellectually active, with disagreements among scholars aired publicly, and consensus typically acknowledged only when perspectives merge." (Speaking of Crime, p. 31)
The admissibility precedents extend to all forms of Forensic Linguistics reports and witnesses, including witness statements, police reports, documents, etc., with two exceptions. The only two reports/ experts that are not routinely accepted are voiceprint experts and stylists who claim to be able to definitively prove two documents have a common author. Otherwise, every other form of FL veracity analysis has now been routinely admitted, even under the most strict Frye test standards.
Why are Forensic Linguistic Reports, Analysis and Testimony Admissible, when Polygraphs Aren't?
There are two reasons Forensic Linguistics reports and testimony are admissible without condition, whereas polygraph results are not.
1. Polygraph tests are routinely used to dismiss or pursue cases by prosecutors, judges and law enforcement, decide on the truth of witnesses in prison or before trial, and determine hiring for the highest National security clearances, as well as sensitive police and military positions. Therefore, the technology is not the issue in admissibility; polygraphs and FL reports have both been proven to be as or more reliable than DNA. The issue is that, when you have two parties, and one is willing to take a poly and the other isn't, there is a high likelihood that the party who is lying or has something to conceal won't want to take the poly. Giving them a choice potentially preserves their 5th amendment rights against self incrimination. Although this issue has surprisingly not yet been adjudicated by the Supreme Court, it is routinely used in the lower courts as a temporary standard.
On the other hand, if you have a witness giving two statements, or two witnesses giving different statements, their testimony is already on the record, and if they were going to self incriminate, they already have done so, so the 5th Amendment is a non issue with Forensic Linguistics reports and analysis. If one witness swears the getaway car was red and the other swears is was green, regardless of who is telling the truth or being accurate, both are thrown out due to the mutual exclusivity of the contradiction-- an issue of fact.
2. The second reason is both more obvious and more subtle. Appellate courts routinely reverse cases when a Judge does not allow Forensic Linguistic testimony or reports into evidence. The reason is that, in a more simple form, FL is the basis of the entire legal system. Both Judges and Juries are using informal or unconscious FL every time they weigh a witness statement or testimony document. This is called the "analysis of contradiction" in FL, and we do it all the time. For example, if two statements are mutually exclusive, the contradiction on its own rules out truthfulness due to logical consistency-- both statements can be false, one can be false and one true, but both can't be true.
If a witness states in January that the assailant was dressed in red, and in February says he was dressed in green, the time honored "Were you lying in January or February?" or "Were you mistaken then or now?" is Forensic Linguistics in one of its simplest forms-- the highlighting of mutually exclusive statements and testimony via contradiction analysis, always casting reasonable doubt, and always grounds for eliminating that testimony based on the obvious lack of logical consistency and veracity alone. For an appellate division to disallow Forensic Linguistic analysis or testimony would undermine the entire judicial system not just at the level of evidence, but at the level of allowing Judges to evaluate documents or testimony (in their own mind) for evidentiary motions in the first place, let alone trial.
The same applies to two witnesses who report different facts or details for the same incident. Instead of one person contradicting in time, two persons are then contradicting in either time or space or both. If two witnesses contradict in any significant detail in written or verbal testimony, it is no different than two witnesses picking different suspects in a lineup. In essence, FL uses the "technology" of time proven logic at the root of all justice, whereas polygraphs use the technology of time proven physiology.
Animation and Audio Pin Admissibility
The defining case for animation and audio pin admissibility to date has been the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in Commonwealth v. Serge-- upholding the lower court's admission of animations with the Judge's caution to the jury that stated: "The animation is a demonstrative exhibit, not substantive evidence, and it is being offered solely as an illustration of the prosecution's version of the events." The PSC decision, which is to date the definitive ruling, thus affirms that demonstrational animations are admissible as exhibits to either support expert witness testimony, or illustrate witness, law enforcement, investigator, defense and prosecution versions of events, rather than as evidence in themselves. The ruling affirms that there is little prejudicial effect, and also states that Frye does not even hold, since animations based on actual or expert witnesses or FL reports are being used as exhibits, rather than scientific evidence in themselves.
|